berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 17,851
- 15,002
- 2,320
On April 28, Justice Department attorneys and attorneys representing the House of Representatives argued by teleconference before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting en banc, in two cases concerning Congress’s Article III standing to sue over alleged executive branch illegality: Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn and U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin.
McGahn concerns whether the House of Representatives can go to court to enforce subpoenas compelling testimony from Trump administration officials. The order granting rehearing en banc vacated a three-judge panel decision from February, which held that the federal courts have no jurisdiction to resolve disputes between the president and Congress over testimony from executive branch officials.
Mnuchin raises similar Article III issues but concerns whether the House of Representatives has standing to sue in district court over the redirection of funding to pay for the U.S.-Mexico border wall. It was also argued before a three-judge panel in February, but the court decided to rehear it en banc along with McGahn before the panel issued its decision. Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao—both Trump nominees—recused themselves from both cases.
www.lawfareblog.com
..................................................................................................................
Fascinating discussion with quite a lot riding on the court's decision.
McGahn concerns whether the House of Representatives can go to court to enforce subpoenas compelling testimony from Trump administration officials. The order granting rehearing en banc vacated a three-judge panel decision from February, which held that the federal courts have no jurisdiction to resolve disputes between the president and Congress over testimony from executive branch officials.
Mnuchin raises similar Article III issues but concerns whether the House of Representatives has standing to sue in district court over the redirection of funding to pay for the U.S.-Mexico border wall. It was also argued before a three-judge panel in February, but the court decided to rehear it en banc along with McGahn before the panel issued its decision. Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao—both Trump nominees—recused themselves from both cases.
![www.lawfareblog.com](https://www.lawfareblog.com/sites/default/files/40486685841_5500a91031_c.jpg)
Oral Arguments in the D.C. Circuit En Banc Consideration of Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn and U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin
Judges were skeptical of the Department of Justice’s sweeping arguments but searched for limiting principles on court cases brought by Congress.
Fascinating discussion with quite a lot riding on the court's decision.